Same sex marriages and "civil unions" - a minor ramble

[katsaris]

A friend of mine, skaly recently said in his livejournal: "..if "marriage" is such a holy institution, then make up a word that encompasses everything that marriage encompasses, but make it a gay thing. If you call it something else, you'll fool all the idiotic rednecks and religious wackos that they've won, that the sanctity of marriage has been preserved. Give the gays what they want, just call it something different. Again, this is an ideological problem. People are looking at marriage as some kind of ideal, some abstract and meaningful symbol. Look instead at the physical--the real--aspects of marriage and give the gay people what they want. If the symbol of marriage is so holy, then don't call it marriage. Call it a "partnership" or whatever. A "merger." A "union." I don't care. It's just a name."

I disagree. If "marriage" is such a holy institutions, that's all the *more* reason for gay people to want to have the right to it. "Give the gays what they want, just call it something different" is not the solution, because it's also the *name* of marriage that is desired. Civil unions are better than nothing but *neither side* considers civil union an acceptable solution, because both sides tend to see what the real issue is. The real issue is acceptance of homosexuality by society. And same-sex marriage goes hand in hand with that. And *names* are important about that.

See, this isn't just about "rights" in the strict definition of them. This isn't just about physical benefits bestowed or tax-cuts or whatever. This is about whether society and the state treats same-sex couples as equal in quality to different-sex couples. And if state and society truly treats them as equal then there's no need to have two different words to signify the same thing. The so called "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" or whatever, have been a stopgap measure intended as a compromise. But it's the most bogus and most frail of compromises, and as a compromise it has already outlived any purpose and proven itself obsolete. What gay people want is *full* recognition of equality, not just the symbol without the rights, nor just the rights without the symbol. But rather both.

Here's the map of the status of Same-sex marriages and Civil unions in Europe, and a similar map about north America.




Neither map is the best that could be, but they will do. Something that the map doesn't show is the nature of the "issue under consideration" countries. With the exception of Ireland and UK, none of the other countries seem to be considering the "civil unions" measure anymore as anything other than a mockery -- California, Washington, they're both moving towards legalizing same-sex marriage without needing to pass through the "civil union" phase. In Spain it's definite same-sex marriages will become legal early next year (no "civil unions" there either as far as I know). Among the countries that already have "civil unions" both France and Sweden are nowadays moving towards same-sex marriages as well. In Canada the question of civil unions isn't even considered anymore as state after state goes forward with the institution of full-fledged marriages for same-sex couples.

One last word about Romania -- it seems that up to 1996 or so, homosexuality was a criminal offense there. Now, just eight years later, one of the two main presidential candidates has promised to legalize same-sex marriages in Romania if he wins in the elections that take place this Sunday (today, that is). That's extra significant I think, as if that's the case it will be the first Eastern Orthodox nation to institute same-sex marriages. Just one thing that shows how far the gay rights movement has gone in a short time -- and how "civil unions" are again showing themselves defunct and needless.


Anyway, that was just a minor ramble.

Comments

[skaly.livejournal.com]

What gay people want is *full* recognition of equality, not just the symbol without the rights, nor just the rights without the symbol. But rather both.

And if people would just stop thinking in terms of symbols--which are false by nature--acceptance would be much easier to achieve. But unfortunately we live in a world more symbolic than it is material.